4 ms·
> Why wasn't "Lawyer Up" the first thing she thought of? It's not clear that a lawyer would matter. Facebook would plead immunity under CDA 230 [1]. Facebook
by slapshot 16y ago
> Why wasn't "Lawyer Up" the first thing she thought of?
It's not clear that a lawyer would matter. Facebook would plead immunity under CDA 230 [1]. Facebook would claim that CDA 230 grants complete immunity to hosts for user-created content, and that the fake profile is user-created content.
The legal theory "you should have made your website better" has yet to gain a lot of legal traction. Maybe it should, but it hasn't yet.
[1] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
- enjo 16y agoYep, in particular I recall a case involving AOL in which a man claimed negligence on the part of AOL for not policing their forums, allowing for people to defame him. The court ruled that providing that type of policing would have turned AOL into a publisher, which is exactly what 230 protects against. I think the same thing would apply here.
- joe_the_user 16y agoBut would it be the same thing? Facebook claims users used their real names. That's pretty specific. If they are flagrantly ignoring a violation of their own claims, their legal standing seem different than an entity merely transmitting data.